Academic literature on the topic '?-1274 Contributions in doctrine of God'

Abstract Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1201–1274), the most eminent Muslim thinker of thirteenth-century Iran occupies a unique place among the Muslim polymaths of the Middle Ages who have gained recognition both in the East and West. In the West, he is recognised as a scientist whose contribution to astronomy, trigonometry and mathematics influenced the course of scientific developments, and in the East as a supreme teacher who contributed significantly to the application of metaphysical argumentation and philosophical terminology in Sufism, Ismaili and Twelver Shiʿi theology, bringing the Ismaili humanistic and ethical tradition of philosophers into the centre of Islamic ethical discourse. The renown of his commentary on Avicenna’s “Hints and Indications” (al-Išārāt wa-l-tanbīhāt) seems to have gained him the position of the foremost master of Avicennian philosophy. From another aspect al-Ṭūsī can be considered a partisan of Nizārī Ismaili theological thinking, a doctrine that in his opinion was somehow in harmony with Avicennan philosophy when he equates Necessary Existence with God. However, while commenting on Avicenna’s theorem of Divine Providence, al-Ṭūsī finds the Avicennan position unacceptable. The conclusions reached in this paper uphold the influence of Nizārī Ismaili philosophical deliberations on the nature of the Divine and His knowledge, not only on al-Ṭūsī and al-Šahrastānī but also on Avicenna himself. Needless to say, the wide scope of the subject prevents us from reaching definitive answers to all the questions raised and this attempt endeavours to lay the ground for further investigations to reach a clearer understanding of the subject.

Abstract This article examines how Reformed scholasticism can be relevant for systematic theology today. ‘Reformed Scholasticism’ denotes the academic practice in which the doctrines of the Reformation are expounded, explained, and defended. It is primarily a method and attitude in search of the truth, based on a careful reading of Scripture, drawing on patristic and medieval traditions, and interacting with philosophy and other academic disciplines. In addition to these methodological features, important contributions on various doctrinal topics can be discovered. The doctrine of God has a foundational role in the sense that God is the primary subject of the other topics (creation, salvation, etc.). Reformed scholastic theology not only examines God’s inner essence, but also the concrete relation and operation of God toward his world. In a Trinitarian understanding of God’s essence, a distinction is maintained between God’s immanent relatedness as three divine Persons, and his outward relation to created reality. The doctrines of creation and providence gave occasion for Reformed scholastics to engage in debates with the emerging natural sciences, and also articulated important theological insights concerning the involvement of God in creaturely affairs. In Christology, the Reformed orthodox maintained the classic doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ, against Socinians and other opponents. These ontological statements are the necessary conditions for a proper understanding of the salvation by Christ. While the doctrinal positions of Reformed scholastic theology cannot be automatically transmitted to contemporary discussions, we can profit from this tradition on several levels of method and content.

Karl Rahner and Thomas F. Torrance have made enormous contributions to 20th century theology. Torrance is quick to point out that Rahner's approach to Trinitarian theology which begins with God's saving revelation (the economic Trinity) and pivots ‘upon God's concrete and effective self-communication in the Incarnation’ does indeed have the effect that Rahner intended. First, it reunites the treatisesOn the One GodandOn the Triune God. This opens the door to rapprochement between systematic and biblical theology and binds the NT view of Jesus closer to the Church's worship and proclamation of the Triune God. Second, it opens the door to rapprochement between East and West by shifting from a more abstractive scholastic framework to one bound up with piety, worship and experience within the Church. Third, it opens the door to rapprochement between Roman Catholic theology and Evangelical theology ‘especially as represented by the teaching of Karl Barth in his emphasis upon the self-revelation and self-giving of God as the root of the doctrine of the Trinity …’

The proto-novel Fèlix, o Llibre de meravelles contains many unsettling «meravelles» or «wonders». One such consists in an observation made by a «recluse»—rather than by a professional theologian—concerning the prayers of Christ and of Mary and the angels, etc., to the effect that their prayers have been unable to call forth any response from God. The efficacy of such prayers is thus brought into question, as is the readiness of God’s mercy and grace. By contextualising such matters within medieval currents of Neoplatonism, particularly the doctrine of causality, I argue that Llull presents a causally conceived theorisation of the hypostatic union. I identify Biblical and medieval precedents for and contrasts with Llull’s position on prayer and relate this latter to the sometimes fluid notions of orthodoxy as regards Christological matters among medieval writers, pausing to focus in particular on Llull’s use of the soul-body analogy for the union of natures in Christ. I examine the apparent contradiction present in Llull’s construal of the efficacy of Christ’s prayer—in this context, implicitly conceived as a prayer of petition—and attempt to resolve this contradiction in a way which indicates clearly Ramon Llull’s relation to orthodoxy at least during the period 1274-89.

AbstractThe sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov has exerted a significant amount of influence over Anglophone theology over the last decade. Theological figures as significant as Rowan Williams, John Milbank and Paul Fiddes, to name but a few, have positively engaged with and utilised Bulgakov's sophiology within their own theological contributions. Thus, for many, Bulgakov's sophiology has proven to be a fecund source of theological inspiration, especially when articulating the relationship between God and the world. However, historically, Bulgakov's sophiology has been criticised by many Orthodox theologians, who argue that Bulgakov's proposals are theologically flawed and challenge traditional orthodox readings of Christian doctrine. Despite the controversy surrounding Bulgakov's use of Sophia, very few comprehensive, critical studies of Bulgakov's sophiology, spanning its historical development, exist. This article seeks to fill this void at a time when Bulgakov's sophiology is enthusiastically adopted by many without an accompanying critical lens.

Analytic theology (AT) is a particular approach to theology and the study of religion that engages with the tools, categories, and methodological concerns of analytic philosophy. As a named-entity, AT arrived on the academic scene with the 2009 Oxford University Press publication, Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology, edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Michael C. Rea. AT was arguably represented, prior to this publication, by the proto-analytic theologian Richard Swinburne in his noteworthy works on Christian doctrine (e.g. Providence and the Problem of Evil, Responsibility and Atonement, The Christian God, Faith and Reason, and The Resurrection of God Incarnate), as well as by other professional philosophers of religion such as Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, William Alston, Eleonore Stump, Robert and Marilyn McCord Adams, Basil Mitchell, Keith Yandell, Paul Helm, and Stephen T. Davis, among others. These philosophers were addressing such topics as the coherence of theism, the rationality of religious belief, and the contributions of such philosophical theologians of the medieval past including Thomas Aquinas or William Ockham and those from modernity including René Descartes and Jonathan Edwards. Yet, the impetus for utilizing analytic philosophy to treat these topics emerged, not from the theological side of the conversation, but from the philosophical side. Anachronistically, then, the term “analytic theology” seems to aptly describe the work of these philosophers of religion.

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION: A Constructive Kuyperian Approach by Bruce Riley Ashford and Craig G. Bartholomew. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020. 366 pages, appendix, bibliography, index. Hardcover; $50.00. ISBN: 9780830854905. *This book is a welcome addition to our need for more work on the doctrine of creation. The authors, one Baptist (Ashford) and one Anglican (Bartholomew), offer what they term a "Kuyperian" or Dutch neo-Calvinist perspective (perhaps more properly, neo-Reformed?). They seek to be exegetical, not merely creedal, in their exposition. In 366 pages of text, they offer a doctrine of creation that comprehends the classical loci and add some of more recent concern. *The authors cover the classical loci in a systematic, well-organized way. In the first, creedally based, chapter, they lay out their approach and orient readers to their exposition of the doctrine. The following two chapters provide a brief but very well-done history of the doctrine. In the chapter from the early church up to the modern period, they survey the teachers of the church, with Irenaeus holding pride of place. This survey touches on the right people and draws out the constructive contributions that each makes. The only group that is treated almost entirely negatively is, predictably, the Anabaptists (pp. 66-68). The authors select negative examples, confuse an Anabaptist doctrine of the world with a doctrine of creation, and make tendentious use of selective quotes. It's hard to credit Anabaptists with a denigration of creation (or earthly matters) when they have well-formed practices of communal life, the sharing of goods, and, to be anachronistic, a thoughtful political theology rooted in particular practices of pacifism. Anabaptists are far from perfect, but they do not lack a doctrine of creation. It's just not one that's discernible through Dutch neo-Calvinist eyes. *The following chapter is an insightful tour of some highlights of the Modern Period with welcome attention to the wrongly neglected Johann Georg Hamann (pp. 75-80). In a clear and concise account of interpretations of Genesis 1 and the entanglement of God, creation, and science, Ashford and Bartholomew describe five positions that depend on "the conclusions of modern science" (p. 98). They then espouse a "literary framework theory" represented by Lee Irons and Meredith Kline, which argues that Genesis 1 reveals "three creation kingdoms" (days 1-3) and "three creation kings" (days 4-6). The picture is completed on day 7 when "God establishes himself as King on the Sabbath" (p. 98). This is filled out in the authors' later chapter on Genesis 1: the three creation kingdoms are "light; sky/seas; land/vegetation;" the three creation kings are "luminaries; sea creatures/winged creatures; land animals/men" (sic, pp. 155-70). This chapter concludes with a foundational assertion: "In the twenty-first century, a full-orbed Irenaean doctrine of creation presents itself as a salient remedy for the ills of our modern and postmodern eras ... Among Christian traditions in the modern period, the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition is, in our opinion, particularly fruitful in providing resources for a recovery and renewal of the Irenaean doctrine of creation" (p. 99). *Following from this, the authors "outline the broad contours of the neo-Calvinist view of creation in seven propositions ..." (p. 103). Most of these propositions are familiar and commonplace within Christian orthodoxy. But two require further comment. The sixth proposition states that "sin and evil cannot corrupt God's good creation structurally or substantially" (p. 102; italics theirs). There may be profound truth in this, but the question of corrupt structures must be clarified. How does a "Kuyperian approach" empower a critique of injustice and oppression in, for example, the over-familiar case of apartheid? The concept of incorruptible structures cries out for further elucidation and glaring warnings against its abuse. The seventh proposition states that "God's restoration of creation will be an elevation and enhancement of creation in its original form" (p. 102). Here the language seems to fall short of a full-orbed Irenaean doctrine of creation. Isn't God's restoration the fulfillment and completion of creation? *After these first chapters that establish the direction and tone for the book, the following chapters are remarkably comprehensive in doctrinal coverage and practical import. Most of the ground covered is traditional, but the authors' discussions are lively and well argued. They proceed mostly by engaging the works of others, so readers of these chapters will receive an education in the scholarly world of the doctrine of creation. One welcome contribution, among others, is an entire chapter devoted to "The Heavenly Realm," which retrieves this inescapable biblical teaching and guards against "over-spiritualizing" (pp. 202-22). *Throughout the book, the authors maintain their commitment to biblical exegesis. They do this through engagement with the work of other scholars, which occasionally threatens to overshadow the biblical text itself. Like the rest of us heirs of modernity, they struggle to achieve what Oswald Bayer says of Hamann: "Scripture interprets me and not I scripture" (p. 77). Still, their determination to be faithful to the biblical narrative as they "do theology" is one to emulate. *Their commitment to exegetically grounded theology is fully displayed in a chapter devoted to Genesis 1. As they engage critically with other scholars, they lay out the foundations of their doctrine of creation. The chapter concludes with an exposition of creation order in the Kuyperian tradition. For the authors, "Creation order is good news!" (p. 173), allowing for the flourishing of life. Injustice only appears against the backdrop of this order. They conclude the chapter with one of their many in-text excurses, asserting that "at the heart of the biblical metanarrative stands the cross, which alerts us to the grace of the biblical story and its resistance to violent coercion" (p. 174). *Here, a number of questions arise. How can the crucifixion of a Galilean peasant on a hill outside Jerusalem sometime around AD 33, be part of a metanarrative? Doesn't its particularity preclude that? Don't we need some other language? Would "Christ is Lord" suffice? How might their account of creation order change if the crucifixion was indeed at the heart of their account? Are there forms of coercion that are not violent? If so, does the biblical story resist those? Is "resistance" strong enough to represent the relationship between the story and violence? *The following chapter, "Place, Plants, Animals, Humans, and Creation," covers a wide range of topics grounded in exegetical theology that leads to changed disposition. This excellent chapter brings together all the strengths of the book: its biblical exegesis, theological maturity, and practices grounded in the first two. *In the chapters that follow, Ashford and Bartholomew cover a lot of ground and give direction from "the Kuyperian tradition." This is evident in their discussions of sin, common grace, culture making, and providence, among other things. Culture making (in chapter 9, "Creation and Culture") takes on particular importance in their account. It occurs in "spheres" that "have their own integrity and function according to unique, God-given principles" (p. 267). But like some of their earlier accounts of creation order, true relationality is mostly missing. Culture doesn't occur in spheres; it occurs in messy, boundary-crossing relationships between God, humans, nonhuman creation, and self. Yes, God is sovereign over all of life, but it is a relational sovereignty, not a spherical and principled sovereignty. Moreover, one could easily conclude that culture making, as in the Kuyperian tradition, is the main calling of human beings. Missional witness to Jesus Christ by the body of Christ is offstage. It is possible to see the so-called cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-31 as our missional mandate, in which case the wholistic calling envisioned by a "cultural mandate" is really a full, biblical practice of the missional mandate of Genesis 1. The calling is lived out in the healing of relationships under the condition of fallenness through the crucifixion of the one "through whom and for whom all things have been created," and in obedience to the Great Commission and Great Commandment. *Perhaps one striking indication of the absence of a robust account of relationality is the rare appearance of the Holy Spirit in the book, especially a book that aspires to be trinitarian. This may also account for the relatively minor role that the people of God play in the authors' exposition. *Even in a lengthy review such as this, I have not adequately represented the breadth and depth of this book. The authors manage to comment, often at length and in depth, on an enormous range of life, which, of course, the doctrine of creation comprehends. *My criticisms of this book (I have more!) are a sign of my deep respect for and learning from Ashford and Bartholomew. Critical matters for the life and witness of God's people are at stake in the development of a mature, robust conversation about the doctrine of creation and living it out. Bruce Ashford and Craig Bartholomew articulate a mature, robust, Irenaean doctrine of creation reshaped by Dutch neo-Calvinism that should be a part of a larger conversation and urgent action as we seek to bear witness to the One Creator and Redeemer in these times. *Reviewed by Jonathan R. Wilson, PhD, Senior Consultant for Theological Integration, Canadian Baptist Ministries; and Teaching Fellow, Regent College, Vancouver, BC V6T 2E4.

Is the idea of ‘evolutionary philosophy’ well taken? If it is, how does evolutionary biology bear on philosophy? The incursion of biological science into ethics towards the end of the 19th century elicited a widespread reaction from twentieth century philosophers, who instantly began to question the relevance of Darwin’s work to philosophy. The doctrine of natural selection may not have comprehensively resolved the age-old problems of philosophy, for example, in the area of human morality and ethical thinking; in fact, it may not be able to replace philosophical inquiry in the absolute sense advocated by most evolutionary theorists. But it has made some remarkable contributions towards a better appreciation of philosophical problems. To this end, this paper explored the various areas of mutual interest between evolutionary science and philosophical inquiry. It highlights the tacit affinities between the two, and thus, finds that even from inception evolutionary biology has tended to follow philosophical inquiry rather closely in the different issues that have been of interest to the latter since its early beginnings in ancient Greece. Some of the areas of mutual concern and interest between the two fields of inquiry include the discourse on God, human nature, the universe, life, ethics, and politics. The paper, therefore, concluded with the submission that evolutionary biology and philosophy complement, rather than oppose, each other. Ultimately, such complementation suggests that both disciplines have a future together; among other things, it makes possible the idea of ‘evolutionary philosophy’.

Abstract The members of the Society for Pentecostal Studies have made significant contributions to ecumenical reconciliation, to the promotion of the intellectual life in the Pentecostal and Charismatic communities, and to service to the classical Pentecostal churches in their development from a movement into mature churches in the community of Christians. For this leadership we are grateful. The Pentecostal scholar in whatever church has a calling to be of service to the whole people of God and to the churches in their task of preaching, handing on the faith and nurturing the faithful. This Society has been a place where this ecclesial vocation has been and can be nurtured. There are many intellectual challenges before the Pentecostal community as it moves into its second century as a renewal movement among Christians worldwide. This presidential address suggests three of these challenges: (1) a renewed understanding of the two thousand years of Christian history and the role of renewal movements within it, including the last century of Pentecostal service; (2) an understanding of the sacramental character of Pentecostal worship, using the example of healing as a ritual where Pentecostals have unique gifts to offer other Christians and a long heritage of sacramental thinking from which to learn; and (3) the doctrine of the church and its call to visible unity, as the institutions that serve the Pentecostal churches mature into their second century and begin to become more theologically grounded, self-reflective, and ecumenical.

DIVINE ACTION, DETERMINISM, AND THE LAWS OF NATURE by Jeffrey Koperski. New York: Routledge, 2020. 168 pages. Hardcover; $160.00. ISBN: 9780367139001. Ebook; open access. *When it comes to talking about God's action in the world and laws of nature in the science classes I teach, my students sometimes wonder if God, violating the very laws he created, is a problem. Jeffrey Koperski has written a book for those students and for you, too! You can see that Koperski is a teacher well experienced with explaining philosophical ideas to students majoring in anything but philosophy (who form the bulk of our philosophy teaching). This makes his new book a very accessible and enjoyable read. Moreover, no matter your background, you are likely to learn something new reading this book, perhaps even about your favored approach to divine action in the world. *Koperski is right to point out that philosophy of science--particularly philosophy of physics--is missing from most divine action discussions. If it enters at all, philosophy of science makes only cursory contributions. He is also right to observe that the causal closure of the physical, or of nature as a whole, gets too little attention in the divine action literature despite the outsized role it plays. Koperski ably shows why neither causal closure nor determinism are genuine obstacles to divine action in the world. Philosophy of science allows Koperski to clear a lot of this dead brush from the ground of divine action literature. This is an important contribution to the discussions. *Koperski helps us think more accurately about laws of nature (full disclosure: he and I have talked about these issues and tread a lot of the same ground). The assumption or metaphor of laws as "governing" events in nature has been accepted as largely unanalyzed in the divine action literature. Though he rarely uses this language, Koperski shows why the metaphor of laws "governing" things does not stand up to close analysis. He endorses a view of laws functioning as constraints that enables us to think more clearly about how God can act in the world without violating laws. *Koperski describes his model for divine action as decretalist and nonviolationist. The laws that scientists deal with represent divine decrees--gifts of order and constraint to creation. The regularities of creation genuinely exist and genuinely act. Koperski captures a biblical view of God's relationship to creation; he also considers natural philosophers' critical thinking about laws in the seventeenth century. *As for nonviolationism, Koperski points out that laws--the nomic conditions or features of the world--do not make things go (no "governing" metaphor). Rather, as physicists have recognized, it is forces that make things move. What laws do is provide nomic constraints on the behavior of forces (p. 134). His model is nonviolationist in that these laws are not violated when God acts in nature; rather, when there are nonnomic changes, "the laws adapt to change. This was true when we thought that nature was Newtonian, and it remains true in the age of quantum mechanics and relativity" (p. 135). Koperski's account is consistent with what I think physics reveals to us about the laws of nature--they function as typicality conditions: A law tells us what to expect for the behavior of forces on a system typical for the constraints represented by the law. But when new factors or conditions are introduced, the law does not tell us what to expect. The typicality is shattered, but not the law. Yet, this does not distress physicists; we know how to model and calculate what happens with these additional factors that the original law did not cover. *Consider a simple example: A grandfather clock keeps time well because of the lawlike regularities involved in its functioning. Yet, if I use my finger to keep the minute hand from moving forward, the clock will cease keeping time accurately. No laws have been violated; however, a genuine physical change has taken place regarding the clock's functioning. The regularities are still there--the laws are still operative--but they adapt to the presence of a new effect or force introduced into the clock system. What this means is that "once the laws of nature are distinguished from the behavior that is the result of those laws and nonnomic conditions, we find a vast space of contingency in which God can act" (p. 135). Koperski calls this a "neoclassical model of special divine action" (p. 135) because God is not manipulating laws to act in the world. If humans can make genuine nonnomic changes to nature without violating laws (e.g., rockets that overcome gravity's pull), clearly God is able to. The question then becomes one of God's relationship to the contingent order he has given creation. *You may be thinking of possible objections to this account of divine action. Koperski discusses several and I recommend you read what he has to say about them. I will briefly discuss what seem to be the most serious--that is, possible violations of energy conservation. There are many reasons to think that conservation laws function as constraints on systems when particular conditions hold. For instance, as Koperski points out, according to general relativity, energy conservation does not apply to an expanding universe. In a dynamic spacetime, the motion of objects does not conserve energy. More generally, any system whose dynamics depend on time will fail to conserve energy, and there are lots of such systems in the actual world. Physicists have precise ways of quantifying how much a system violates energy conservation and describing the resulting order of the system in question. The idea that any system violating energy conservation can always be embedded into a larger system restoring conservation is just that--an idea and nothing more. Physicists do not have any good reasons supporting this idea (though some defend it to maintain their reductionist intuitions). There is plenty of opportunity for divine action in the world and energy conservation is never an issue. *One could sweat some details. For example, Koperski rehearses arguments to the effect that quantum processes suppress chaos, thus undercutting the amplification of small quantum changes to macroworld effects (pp. 52-53). While it is true that quantum mechanics is no friend of chaos, the amplification argument is more along the lines of a chaotic macroscopic system being sensitive to quantum fluctuations; this doesn't depend on the existence of so-called quantum chaos. There always are stringent constraints on such amplification, however; so, Koperski is correct that banking on this as a route for divine action is still a hopeless cause. And I am not convinced that physics and philosophy of science are pointing toward an eventual rejection of ontological randomness in quantum mechanics (pp. 60-63). Irreducible randomness is not lawless chaos; it is a form of order that God has given to creation even if it offends the deterministic intuitions of some physicists and philosophers. None of Koperski's account stands or falls with these quibbles. *I would like to see Koperski's account enriched with the doctrine of creation, such as in Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins: Cosmology, Geology and Biology in Christian Perspective, Robert C. Bishop et al. (IVP Academic, 2018). His discussion in sec. 4.2 suggests that seventeenth-century natural philosophers eventually ditched all forms of divine-mediated action for direct or unmediated divine action as embodied in the laws of nature (the discussion is a little oversimplified, but this is a short book). This amounts to treating the laws of nature as the main mediators of all that happens in creation (back to the "governing" metaphor). In contrast, the doctrine of creation's emphasis on multiple forms of divine-mediated action helps to address the divine relationship to creation in which God is working in and through nature, not outside and apart from it. This is exactly what Koperski's account needs for some of the questions he entertains at the end of the book and for some he leaves unanswered (e.g., why one does not have to restrict divine concurrence to Thomist models only). *Reviewed by Robert C. Bishop, Department of Physics and Engineering, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187.

This thesis offers a constructive account of the doctrine of divine simplicity in Christian theology. In its methodology, the thesis aims to present this divine perfection as an implicate of the scriptural portrayal of God, to draw upon the insights and conceptual resources of Thomas Aquinas and various Reformed orthodox theologians, and to respond to some objections to divine simplicity. The focus on exegetical elaboration of biblical teaching and the use of Thomas and the Reformed orthodox distinguish this work from a number of recent accounts of God in both systematic theology and analytic philosophy. The case for God's simplicity is made by examining God's singularity, aseity, immutability, infinity, and act of creation in Holy Scripture and then tracing the ways in which these descriptions of God imply that he is (negatively) not composed of parts. Rather, he is (positively) actus purus and really identical with his own essence, existence, and attributes, each of which is identical with the whole being of the triune God considered under some aspect. In light of the constructive work, this study then addresses the three most pressing objections to divine simplicity: (1) that it denigrates God's revelation of his many attributes in the economy; (2) that it eliminates God's freedom in creating the world and acting in history; and (3) that it does not cohere with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Bibliography: leaves 118-124
Did Christ, in the incarnation, take a fallen or unfallen human nature? This question, in its various forms, has occupied the Christian Church for as long as it has existed. For the Seventh-day Adventist church, to which tradition I belong, the question centres on whether Christ as a human being had sinful tendencies or not. This question has divided the church into two main camps, with one camp saying he did, and the other saying he did not. And the debate goes on. It is from the Seventh-day Adventist church tradition that I picked up on this debate, following it up to mainstream Christianity and motivating this research. My research seeks to identify the causes of the debate. Its premise is that unless the specific causes of the debate are clearly identified and appropriately addressed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude it. For a close analysis, two scholars, each representing one side, are picked and examined: Pannenberg, representing the fallen nature position, and Hatzidakis, representing the unfallen nature position. Their respective arguments are gleaned, compared and analysed; and their differences, causes and possible solutions are pointed out. The findings are then applied to the Seventh-day Adventist church debate and to Christianity at large.
Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology
M. Th. (Systematic Theology)

Abstract Traditional Christian eschatology affirmed an end of the present world of nature and of human history, when in the future the risen Christ will come again to hold a final judgment, to raise the dead, and to receive those who believe in him to participate in his eternal life that he shares with God the Father. The kingdom of God to come, which had been understood in moral and even political terms by Martin Bucer in the sixteenth century and afterward under his influence, had been reconceived later on in terms of the Christological doctrine of the kingdom of grace entrusted to Christ by the Father, exercised in the life of the church and to be completed in the future kingdom of glory. This article examines modernity, history, and eschatology. It considers Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's conception of history as a process of divine education, the further development of a philosophy of history and theology, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's contributions in the secularization of Christian eschatology.

This contribution is a literature-based research that involved analysis of primary literature on the Trinity in African theology. Although the beginning of the historical development of the Christian doctrine of God as the Trinity may be rooted in Africa, not least because of the theological contributions of early African theologians such as Tertullian, Origen, Arius, Athanasius and St. Augustine (Bediako 2004:154; Ngong 2017:55; Ogbonnaya 1994:56), this article focuses on Trinitarian hermeneutics in modern African Christian theology (hereafter African theology). It is a narrative analysis of the African discourse on the Trinity with reference to three phases in the history of African theology. These are namely the phase of initial debates on the Christian theological validity of African concepts of God, the phase of literary productivity on African Christologies and, finally, the phase of post-colonial African theology. In the context of this contribution, the phrase ‘African theology’ refers to modern academic ‘theological reflection by African Christians on the interplay between Christian tradition and the African religio-cultural heritage, including contemporary experience’ (Sakupapa 2018:407).

Recent years have seen the flowering of something called the “theological interpretation of Scripture.” This is, very roughly, what happens when biblical scholars and theologians alike read the Bible to see what it tells us about God. For several centuries, the discipline of biblical studies has been not only distinguished but also separated from theological discourse. There have been many notable exceptions, of course, but the all-too-common results have been these: biblical scholars often interpret the texts with other aims in mind (sometimes reading with a theological lens has been discouraged as unscholarly and thus improper), and theologians often do their work of constructive theology without serious engagement with biblical scholarship or even with the Christian Scriptures. Recent years have also seen the rise (or perhaps re-birth) of something now called “analytic theology.” Analytic theology is, very roughly, what happens when philosophers who are interested in doctrine and theologians who think that there is (or might be) value in the appropriate use of philosophical tools get together. It is now a burgeoning movement, and analytic theologians are making contributions on a wide range of issues and topics, and from a variety of perspectives and approaches. We have not, however, witnessed a great deal of interaction between those who engage in the theological interpretation of Scripture and those who practice analytic theology....